I am an orthodox Christian, ask me a question!

[Jon Paul]

This will go round indefinately, not because your argument is unanswerable, but because you've set it up as unquestionable. For instance - "Monotheism is not supposed to be proposed, and then evidenced" - this is quite convenient in a world where everything single other claim MUST be proposed THEN evidenced.

No. Every other hypothesis must be proposed to fit the data, not merely for verification, but for being a true explanation of the data.

For instance, the theory of evolution is proposed to explain the data of biological diversity.

Bohms and Bohrs interpretations of quantum mechanics proposed to explain the data of quantum mechanical observations.

So my point was not that my claims do not require evidence. My point was that my claims are not arbitrary (like the Flying Spaghetti Monster). If my point had been the former, then I would not have gone in (in that exact same post) with giving a sketch of my evidential argument.

YOU have set god up as transcendent and outside "spatiotemporal existence", If no-one's buy's this notion (and I certainly don't), or requires evidence - too Bad.

My argument from potentiality has dictated that transcendence. Not my "convenience".

This isn't where your argument "arrives at", this is where your argument BEGINS.

It is exactly not where the argument from potentiality begins, because it is not an epistemological argument. It begins at nil, by investigating phenomena in reality, a posteriori. Only the transcendental argument begins at the already-existing worldviews and propositions, and their affirmation or non-affirmation.

The fact I don't believe the orgins of the universe can be explained away with such a theologican semantic non-entity such as 'actus purus', renders anything else your arguments lead to as worthless to me as simply it's an empty phrase, devoid of meaning or any possible substantiation.

It's not semantic, as it bases itself on phenomena in reality, a posteriori, not on semantics.